[POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers

[Fungus]

Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.

Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceans and the poles(!) 

Yet we are sure the present heating is unprecedented and MWP/LIA were local.

To be fair, the people saying there was going to be an ice age in the 1970s were the same people going around saying "scientists have proved that bees can't fly".

Neither is true:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

And yes, our instruments have got a lot better since then and they're confirming the 1970s pencil-and-paper predictions.

Plus: The 1970s was when greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off, so that's the most important period to study in detail.



https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Marco]

No one was doing global pencil and paper thermometer readings during the MWP/LIA, or indeed most of the rest of the hockeystick.

[Fungus]

No one was doing global pencil and paper thermometer readings during the MWP/LIA, or indeed most of the rest of the hockeystick.

And... how does that make it a good idea to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air in the 21st century?

(nb. the title of this thread contains another three letter acronym, "AGW")

[jonovid]

No one was doing global pencil and paper thermometer readings during the MWP/LIA, or indeed most of the rest of the hockeystick.

And... how does that make it a good idea to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air in the 21st century?

note the text > Data from Scripps CO2 Program   Last updated May 2006 <
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/   GreenhouseGasNetwork
Ok so this is way before The climategate emails exposed the scandal to hide alternatives scientific theories like natural cycles or global cooling, to the global warming theories by many in the scientific establishment & The United Nations.
as many say natural cycles of carbon dioxide change because of the Sun Not because of man. 
however there is nothing to be had by pushing natural cycles. only a doom and gloom  scientific theories like the global warming. can be used by political left & the new age corporations raise taxs on the masses, in the name of saving the world.
its all about an United Nations push for global government, useing the doom and gloom story by al gore.
carbon dioxide is natural, as its the Sun that controls temperature levels. but try telling that to the political left.
its political.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

So far only 25% have chosen "smells fishy" ... 27 out of 107, 1 out of 4. Not so bad given Dave's manipulated poll now provides 2x more pro AGW options, just in case.

political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic

+1 that ^^^

[Fungus]

So far only 25% have chosen "smells fishy" ... 27 out of 107, 1 out of 4. Not so bad given Dave's manipulated poll now provides 2x more pro AGW options, just in case.

political ideology has corrupted the science on this topic

+1 that ^^^

Problem: The poll title says "among engineers".

The post just above yours shows very clearly that not everybody who voted is an engineer.

[jonovid]

Problem: The poll title says "among engineers".

engineers vs scientists  ,  the poll app has two unused windows  why did not use them.

[Fungus]

No one was doing global pencil and paper thermometer readings during the MWP/LIA, or indeed most of the rest of the hockeystick.

And... how does that make it a good idea to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air in the 21st century?

note the text > Data from Scripps CO2 Program   Last updated May 2006 <
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/   GreenhouseGasNetwork
Ok so this is way before The climategate emails exposed the scandal to hide alternatives scientific theories like natural cycles or global cooling, to the global warming theories by many in the scientific establishment & The United Nations.
as many say natural cycles of carbon dioxide change because of the Sun Not because of man. 
however there is nothing to be had by pushing natural cycles. only a doom and gloom  scientific theories like the global warming. can be used by political left & the new age corporations raise taxs on the masses, in the name of saving the world.
its all about an United Nations push for global government, useing the doom and gloom story by al gore.
carbon dioxide is natural, as its the Sun that controls temperature levels. but try telling that to the political left.
its political.

I don't have enough  for this.

What you need to do is find some evidence that contradicts it, not just repeat crap you heard on Facebook or say "that picture is old, neener neener".

PS: Two seconds with google will find you a newer picture (and it's not going to show a decrease or levelling off in CO2).

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=co2+levels+by+year

[orion242]

Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.

Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceans and the poles(!) 

Yet we are sure the present heating is unprecedented and MWP/LIA were local.

To be fair, the people saying there was going to be an ice age in the 1970s were the same people going around saying "scientists have proved that bees can't fly".

Neither is true:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

And yes, our instruments have got a lot better since then and they're confirming the 1970s pencil-and-paper predictions.

Plus: The 1970s was when greenhouse gas emissions really started taking off, so that's the most important period to study in detail.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Well IMO this AWG crap is the same as the global cooling media event of yesteryear.

This 97% of all climate scientist agree on AWG is another fabrication of the truth.  This number seems to trace back to this study, and its only if you whittle down the respondents to a small group of those polled do they come up with.  Yet the media, politicans, etc all blab away as if 97% of ALL climate scientists really agree.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=3CB1DC7414FD6E3D680EC789312E3B28.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

"Abstract


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."


Nevermind the 66% that took no position on AWG, lets only look at the 32% that did take the leap and say humans are to blame.  Somehow this means nearly ALL climate scientists agree?!?!  This 97% number is being misrepresented at best.  Yet anyone that comments to the contrary of AWG is a nut job conspiracist.   I thought science was based on provable facts, not phony statistics.

Add in climategate, grants mainly funding studies that want to show AWG is real, bogus 97%....  IMO, there is too much money flowing only in one direction to get any objective science on this matter.  Some of the same scientists pushing global cooling in the 70s are the same dbags that now push global warming.  Should we limit Co2, probably.  Should we all get taxed to $hit on energy, forced to use subsidized electric cars that have little to no ROI, smother solar and wind with tax money to make give them a chance of being financially viable....not in my book.  Technology is getting better and will likely solve this problem give time.

[Muxr]

So far only 25% have chosen "smells fishy" ... 27 out of 107, 1 out of 4. Not so bad given Dave's manipulated poll now provides 2x more pro AGW options, just in case.

Frankly that's a bit embarrassing. Global change/warming isn't really disputed anymore, virtually everyone agrees it's happening, even the big oil lobby. Where the difference lies is weather it's human caused or not. Which also shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

But it's also a much less important point. Lets say it isn't even caused by humans, we should still do something about it. I try to design more efficient electronics.

[orion242]

But it's also a much less important point. Lets say it isn't even caused by humans, we should still do something about it. I try to design more efficient electronics.

Not sure capping off volcanoes would get much traction, lol.  I'm more or less with you.  Energy is a finite resource, we should conserve it.  I just don't see the need to adopt bs regulation on technologies that cannot stand on their own legs or being taxed to the point they can.

[james_s]

New technologies are often a chicken & egg problem. Today LED light bulbs are efficient, reliable and inexpensive. To get to where they are now required something to spur the process and get it going, and the ban on many traditional incandescent bulbs along with subsidies on the LED bulbs did just that. Personally I would have preferred a tax on inefficient bulbs rather than a ban but whatever, that's water under the bridge. It's not hard to see why this sort of thing is necessary, people are notoriously short sighted. Doesn't take much looking around to see examples of this, most people especially in younger generations are all about instant gratification. People take out payment plans for freaking smartphones and toys. People are naturally resistant to change, sometimes they have to be dragged kicking and screaming and then they realize they really are better off.

Fuel economy regulations are another example, it could be said that they have gone too far, but I have little doubt that if not for regulations, we would still have loads of cars on the market that got lousy gas mileage and probably still some with carburetors but people would buy them because they'd be cheap, even if the total cost of ownership was higher ignoring the environmental footprint.

Both of these are examples of technologies that can stand on their own today, but may never have got any traction if the initial development was not given a push. Countless other technologies began as military/defense efforts where our tax dollars are spent freely. The GPS system that so many of us rely on today would never have happened without the military, even now I'm not sure it could stand on its own legs if we had to subscribe to access it or if we all paid a separate GPS tax to support it. Instead it's hidden by rolling it into the defense budget.

[orion242]

Fuel economy regulations are another example, it could be said that they have gone too far, but I have little doubt that if not for regulations, we would still have loads of cars on the market that got lousy gas mileage

Once $4/gal gas hit, sales of SUVs hit the toilet, today with the return of cheap gas even with all the regulation they are again one of the most popular models.  Seems now there on track to requirements that may not be technically possible or are our cars become so stupid expensive most can afford them so they stay with their gas hogging clunker.  Somewhere their needs to be a sensible balance.

I deal with these credits all the time in building automation.  We have pretty substantial credits for putting VFDs on motors where I'm at currently.  Sounds like a good idea and it is in a lot of cases.  Being the credits are so good, I see a fair deal of these applied to motors that need to run full speed in order to operate the equipment correctly.  So they add a VFD, run it @ 100% constantly while taking a 5%eff hit just to collect a wad of cash.   Does the program wash out overall, I don't know.  I know its my tax money paying for this BS, and there should be enough merit based on the energy savings alone IMO.

When VFDs originally came out, they where expensive as hell in the HVAC field.  I don't remember any real credits being handed out then, nothing like they do today.  People installed them where they actually had a payback in the energy savings.  Somehow they caught on, and now they are common as candy corn in our field.

LED bulbs, I don't see any different.  Without any handouts, they are plenty of applications a $25-50 bulb made cents.  Bulbs in a auditorium/gym ceilings, billboards, etc where the labor to install them outweighs the cost.   Would technology move faster if we shower it in cash, sure.  Without any handouts, would LED technology stop dead in its tracks, doubt it.

There are alot of innovations out there that didn't require us showering it with money.  If it has merits, people will buy it.  More people buy it, costs come down and it snowballs.

[james_s]

There is certainly a lot of BS out there but I still support dumping some money into some things in order to encourage adoption which spurs production and drops the cost. Doing things like installing VFDs where the motors are always run at 100% is exploiting the system and is part of the problem. Somebody should have been more careful about authorizing the subsidies and the people outfitting the facilities could use some morals as well. That said, there was some benefit, even if some of those VFDs sold were not beneficial directly, it got them out there and now VFDs are cheap and widely available. I was an early adopter of LEDs and before that CFLs. I was so impressed with the first LED bulbs I got that I retrofitted most of my house with them over the following 2 years after they became available even at 40 bucks a pop. Those original expensive bulbs I got are all still working and by my calculations most of them have paid for themselves now in savings. I have not replaced a single burned out bulb since 2012, that's amazing to me, I used to replace bulbs all the time. Now they are produced in such numbers that prices have fallen to well under $5 for decent bulbs but a huge percentage of the population is still too stupid to see the benefit. They keep buying "cheap" incandescent bulbs because they have no concept of the connection between their monthly electrical bill and the bulbs they use. It seems trivial to me but then I understand basic math, clearly not everyone does. I could go on all day listing examples of technologies, services and infrastructure that would have been a non-starter had it relied solely on the free market. I realize capitalism (which I'm generally a believer in) is a religious ideology to many but it's not rational to think that everything can pick itself up by the bootstraps and become a market success. Public companies are so focused on the quarterly results that few are going to invest in a technology that may succeed in 10 or 20 years, shareholders want to see a return on their investment right now.

Americans in general and probably much of the rest of the Western world have become obsessed with instant gratification. People buy non-necessities on credit cards and look only at the monthly bill rather than the total cost of purchase. People you mention start buying SUVs when gas gets cheap even though anyone with half a functioning brain should realize that fuel prices are going to go back up and then those people will be pissing and moaning about the fuel cost. Even the guzzling SUVs of today are nothing like what we had before, my dad had a truck that was lucky to get 8mpg if you drove with a light foot. Now low 20s is easily attainable in a bigger more well equipped truck. People even fall for those "rent to own" furniture scams, if that doesn't illustrate how fiscally illiterate a significant swath of the population is then I don't know what does. If you have to rent a damn sofa or TV you can't afford a new sofa or TV, that ought to be obvious. My take on it is that many people really are too stupid to make sensible choices for themselves.

[mtdoc]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

More can be found HERE

It's also a fact  that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.

[james_s]

I think the majority of the AGW doubt is nothing more than wishful thinking and confirmation bias, people believe it's BS because it somehow conflicts with their worldview and/or self interests. There is clearly a part of the brain that handles beliefs, that may be occupied by traditional religious beliefs but it can just as easily latch onto other things which people then get extremely emotionally tied to. That region of the brain is far more active in some individuals than others and for those who are dominated by it, it's impossible to use logic, reason and empirical evidence to debate with them because their belief is not based on those things to begin with. They will not "see" or will immediately dismiss any evidence which does not support the belief they already hold. 

[orion242]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Exactly, is there any need for this?  Same thing.

[Fungus]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Exactly, is there any need for this?

No, but the people who decide what gets subsidized are the same people who own the oil companies.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Exactly, is there any need for this?  Same thing.

Well, yes, there is, because nowadays we prefer to buy @aliexpress and have things sent across the world instead of going to the Radio Shack that's 2 streets away.

[Fungus]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Exactly, is there any need for this?  Same thing.

Well, yes, there is, because nowadays we prefer to buy @aliexpress and have things sent across the world instead of going to the Radio Shack that's 2 streets away.

What does that have to do with subsidy of power plants?

If Radio Shack can't compete online with the Chinese then I could understand subsidy of USA labor or increased import tariffs for Chinese goods as a political solution.

Subsidy of something that mostly puts money into politician's pockets? Not so much.

[cdev]

Subsidized shipping, perhaps?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Ships => gigantic diesel engines

[Marco]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Because they provide autarky ... renewable energy less so, especially say solar in Europe.

PS. mail subsidies are screwed up, we're killing small local businesses, wasting a ton of fuel all in the name of some seemingly inviolable old international mail treaty.

[Fungus]

When discussing subsidies, it's important to remember that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation have been and continue to be heavily government subsidized.

Because they provide autarky ... renewable energy less so, especially say solar in Europe.

PS. mail subsidies are screwed up, we're killing small local businesses, wasting a ton of fuel all in the name of some seemingly inviolable old international mail treaty.

It's also bad for local postal services. Even if China pays the costs of the shipping containers it still has to be sorted, transported and delivered in the destination countries. There's no way they're making money on that.

[Marco]

I think it goes to show globalism is  a cause, while AGW inspired environmentalism is often a means to a cause (cronyism, weakening western economies to benefit globalism etc). We get regulations and engine destroying fuel in our cars, meanwhile the ships providing us our aliexpress packages are subsidized by our national postal services and burn bunker oil.

We screw around in the margins while shipping fleets burn gunk with upto 4.5% sulphur.